Hah, okay. I don't think you're a geezer, I just don't think you're using enough imagination. Imagine embedding sensors in every square meter of roadway for precise detection of potholes/stopped cars/accidents. You mentioned wearables -- which I think are going to be huge, despite they naysayers. Imagine using your magic decoder ring in place of passwords for anything where you're not worried about the gun-to-your-head or cut-off-your-finger attacks, and having all of the connected devices around you such as lighting or color scheme retrieve your preferences over the network and conform to your preferences.

In terms of jumping in -- sure, I'm not going to pay money for anything unless I really think it will provide value to me. (Value might be just in playing with it and seeing what it can do even if it's not perfect -- I did lay down $300 for an Oculus Rift DK2 just to be able to play with it, even though I know VR has a ways to go. But in general, I wait until technologies mature before buying them).

Speaking of monitoring of body functions, I would absolutely love to have automated monitoring of pulse rate and O2 saturation so that 911 could be contacted and people around you could be alerted if your heart stopped or if you were choking/drowning/etc. Sure, it might only help in 10% of the cases, but hey, if so, that's still a lot of tragedies averted. There are absolutely privacy concerns that have to be dealt with.

You seem fairly privacy oriented. How about window shades or smart glass that automatically close when someone reports a peeping Tom in the neighborhood? The interesting applications are out there, we are just waiting for the components to become cheap enough. Some of them haven't been thought of yet. Look at lots of the really popular smartphone apps -- they were difficult to conceive of before smartphones. My post wasn't only aimed at you, by the way, but you seem to be one of the more strenuous objectors.

Shockingly, I'm actually aware of the fact that satellites are closer to the Earth than the moon. It turns out that you actually have to launch both satellites AND moon shots out of the Earth's atmosphere. That's "space".

> For example, no one needs perfect ball bearings made in free-fall, the ones we make here are all good enough for all the jet engines in the world,> and I thought 3D printing was going to be the next big thing, why do you need free-fall when you can position matter atom by atom?

I posted this elsewhere in the thread, but this describes the iOS security mechanisms in excruciating detail, including the full-disk encryption, etc. etc. Note that it does vary by hardware platform (3GS, 4, 4S, 5, 5S) and iOS version, so this is the "new hotness". There's a lot of incorrect information in the comments.

That's an interesting theory but I don't think it fits the observed facts. Every time? Which particular wars were fought when UPC scanners came to supermarkets, or robots to assembly lines, or the automobile, or dozens of other times when technological advancement put a lot of people out of work?

Per http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html, in the US, there was a long time between unemployment in the 30s and the start of World War II. It's not clear that the unemployment used that surplus -- at least not for a while. And look at 1982. Which war used up that surplus of labor?

Even if I grant that what you've stated is true -- and I don't necessarily, although I do know there are a number of people who agree with you that the standard of living dropped for some time after the industrial revolution -- it wasn't exactly my point.

The parent poster stated, "There just aren't enough jobs." That is the Luddite Fallacy (Technological Unemployment if you prefer). In every case so far since the Industrial Revolution (UPC scanners, assembly line robots, ATMs, etc. etc. etc.) that hasn't been the case. So, I ask again -- what's different now?

The only "what's different" I can think of that might actually alter this equation is strong AI, and we're still a ways off from that (although I'm completely convinced it's possible).

I actually said all of these things. "Now, you can certainly argue that there are external costs that are born by everyone and that you can't compete because those costs aren't allocated correctly. That's a fair argument -- and there are definitely externalities."

My point was simply that it isn't a "no-brainer". It requires quite a bit of thought, which you haven't done.

Oh, and the OP?"It's incredibly cost effective, a typical nuclear plant will cost $8-12bn just in construction costs, so this is already 1/12th the price of nuclear in terms of construction."

The nuclear plant produces much more energy, and produces it day and night. Neglecting externalities, if you do some simple division, you find out that the nuclear plant is still cheaper per MWh. (I think I saw that elsewhere in the thread). You're too busy calling me an idiot to do simple division or try to put some thought into the cost of externalities -- so you're completely certain of your position without having any facts at all.